State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh
Supreme Court of India, 19 March 1985, 3 judges, 1985 AIR 716; 1985 SCR (3) 358; 1985 SCC (2) 321
A female heir whose share in joint family property is fixed under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act does not leave the family without her volition, so the surviving members were together entitled to one ceiling unit.
Facts
Sham Rao, his son Narayan Rao, his wife Sulochanabai and his mother Gangabai alias Taibai formed a Mitakshara joint Hindu family owning agricultural land in fourteen villages. Sham Rao died on 15 June 1957, and his one-third share devolved equally on the three survivors, who continued to live together and enjoy the property as before. When the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 came into force on 26 January 1962, Narayan Rao filed a declaration claiming a family arrangement under which each could retain 96 acres. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the arrangement, held that they were one family entitled to one ceiling unit, and declared 222.32 acres surplus. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed their appeal. The Bombay High Court, under Article 227, held that each was entitled to a separate unit. The State appealed by special leave.
Questions before the Court
- Does a female heir on whom a share in coparcenary property devolves under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cease to be a member of the joint family because of the notional partition in Explanation I?
- Were the surviving members a 'family' under Section 2(11) of the Ceiling Act entitled to only one unit of ceiling area?
- Does the proviso to Section 6 of the Ceiling Act give a separate unit to every family member who holds land separately?
What the Court held
- A joint family may consist of female members, and owning a definite share in family property does not prevent a person from being a member of a family, as the Dayabhaga family shows.
- Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum is authority only that a female heir who sues for partition, expressing her wish to leave the family, gets both her inherited interest and her notional share. It does not hold that she ceases to be a member on the death of a male member without her volition.
- A legal fiction is carried to its logical end for the purpose for which it is enacted, but not beyond. The female heir's interest becomes fixed under Section 6, but she remains a member unless she chooses to separate. Since neither female here took steps to separate, the family continued.
- The proviso to Section 6 of the Ceiling Act is confined to increasing the ceiling area for families of more than five members; it does not give each member holding separate land a separate unit.
- As a 'person' includes a 'family' under the Ceiling Act, Narayan Rao, Sulochanabai and Gangabai were together entitled to one unit. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the Sub-Divisional Officer's order restored.
Why it matters
The judgment explains Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum and confines it: the notional partition under Explanation I to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act fixes the female heir's share but does not by itself separate her from the joint family. It also states the features of a Hindu joint family and coparcenary, including that a joint family can consist of a single male member with female members.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“But it cannot be an authority for the proposition that she ceases to be a member of the family on the death of a male member of the family whose interest in the family property devolves on her without her volition to separate herself from the family.”
“It is no doubt true that the right of a female heir to the interest inherited by her in the family property gets fixed on the death of a male member under section 6 of the Act but she cannot be treated as having ceased to be a member of the family without her volition as otherwise it will lead to strange results which could not have been in the contemplation of Parliament when it enacted that provision and which might also not be in the interest of such female heirs.”
“This proviso was intended to qualify what was stated in Section 6 and was limited in its operation. It was confined to the purpose of increasing the ceiling area as provided in section 6 of the Ceiling Act. It cannot be construed as laying down that wherever a member of a family had his separate property he or she should be regarded as not a member of a family and that he or she would be entitled to a separate unit of ceiling area.”
“In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that Narayan Rao, Sulochanabai and Gangabai alias Taibai were together entitled to retain only one unit of ceiling area. In the result the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer which was affirmed by the Tribunal is restored.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 6 and Explanation I (as it stood in 1957), Hindu Succession Act, 1956
- Section 2(11), Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961
- Section 2(22), Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961
- Section 6 and proviso, Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961
Case and bench
- Parties
- State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 1441 of 1971
- Decided
- 19 March 1985
- Bench
- E.S. Venkataramiah, O. Chinnappa Reddy, R.B. Misra
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by E.S. Venkataramiah, J.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.